DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT 

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00488

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030203.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040114.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1.  I am requesting that my discharge be reviewed and changed based on the following unjust issues.

I arrived at Recruit Training Command late evening on January 17, 2002.  During the days following I went through the in-processing procedures.  During this in-processing there is a portion referred at the ”Moment of Truth”.  At this time I revealed personal information regarding my brief hospitalization for depression.  I stressed that I had been symptoms and medication free for five and one half years.

Because of this honest disclosure I was referred to the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) for mental health evaluation.  While at the REU I had several sessions with Lt. H .A. D____, USNR.  Lt D___ told me that she would give me her professional recommendation that I be retained and continue training for my Naval career.  Lt. D___ also asked me to send for the hospital discharge summary from my stay at the Big Spring State Hospital.  This I gladly did.

I was assigned to Recruit Training division 132, Ship #3 and began my recruit training.  During my training I demonstrated my ability to succeed and excel in many areas.  I was being considered for a Division staff position.  Only those recruits that are demonstrating success and an understanding in U.S. Navy Core Values are considered for these positions, that of leading other recruits.

To my surprise and the surprise of my 1ST Division Commander, I was ordered back to the Recruit Evaluation Unit.  My division Commander, Petty Officer W__ questioned why I was being ordered back to REU.  He and I discussed the possible reasons and he advised me that his recommendation was that I continue training because I was a good recruit and he needed me in his Division.

As ordered, I returned to the REU where I again met with Lt. H.A. D___.  Lt. D___ informed me that I was being recommended for separation.  This caught me by surprise as I was having very good success in my training.  I questioned Lt. D__ about why I was being separated from the Navy.  She replied that Her Captain said that I would not pass for a waiver.  Shortly thereafter I was discharged from the Navy with a separation code of JFC and a reentry code of RE-4.

This discharge is an injustice to me.  After carefully reviewing the attached SF600 it is plain for anyone to see that the data entered on the Recruit Mental Health form is not consistent with the narrative that was written by lt. H.A. D__.  I was never depressed, never suffered from insomnia, and never had feelings of worthlessness while in recruit training.  I firmly feel tht the entries on the SF600 erroneous.

Please reconsider correcting this injustice by upgrading my discharge to honorable and assign a separation code that will reflect the true nature of my service in the Navy.”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Letter from L_ S__ M., Ed., L.P.C Texas Panhandle Mental Health Mental Retardation (2 pages)
Copy of Recruit Mental Health Administrative Separation Recommendation dated February 11, 2002
Copy from Medical Record
Treatment Summary from N_ M. S_, Ed. D. Licensed Psychologist
Treatment Plan Review/Discharge Readiness (5 pages) 
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	011026 - 020116	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  020117		Date of Discharge:  020220

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  NOB		OTA:  NOB

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020211:	Medical evaluation by a military psychologist.

	AXIS I: Major Depressive Disorder, single episode, 296.2, EPTE, Resolved.

020213:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a major depressive disorder.

020213:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

020214:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020220 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1:  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of services as “Uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance of conduct which would merit an “honorable” characterization.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to “honorable.”  Relief denied.  The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, civilian employment, educational pursuits, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 13 Jun 01 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls14.jag.af.mil".

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023